Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Video of the Oct 29th Dunwoody City Council Meeting

Recap to the best of my memory.

Modified: Amend the 2012 Operating and Capital Budgets
Womack Vermack Roundabout removed from the 2012 budget amendment

Modified: Adopt the 2013 Annual Operating and Capital Budgets
Womack Vermack Roundabout removed from the 2013 budget.
Prisoner Transport Approved
DEA Officer rejected
Crime Response - Traffic Team added
Discussion of Closing Dog Park rejected - moving approved
3 percent employee raise

Deferred the City Council 2013 Meeting Schedule.

Approved Items Below
Approval of Facility Use Agreements with Affiliated Programming Partners.
a. Stage Door Players
b. Dunwoody Nature Center
c. Dunwoody Senior Baseball
d. Handweavers
e. Spruill Center
f. Dunwoody Preservation Trust / Donaldson Bannister

Approval of Park Rental Fees.
Resolution of Support for the I-285 @ GA 400 Interchange
Approval of Agreement with ConnectSouth for Georgia Legislative Support.

 Approved RZ 12-101: Pursuant to the City of Dunwoody Zoning Ordinance, Walton Ashwood, LLC, Owner of 1000 Ashwood Parkway, Seeks Permission to Rezone Property Currently Zoned Office-Institution Conditional (O-Ic) to Office-Institution Conditional (O-Ic) to Allow for a Change of Previous Conditions.

Approved RZ 12-102: Pursuant to the City of Dunwoody Zoning Ordinance, Charles P. Stephens, Owner of 1725 Mount Vernon Road, Seeks Permission to Rezone Property Currently Zoned Office-Institution Conditional (O-Ic) to Office-Institution Conditional (O-Ic) to Allow for a Change of Previous Conditions.


DunwoodyTalk said...


I am very disappointed to see $70,000 spent on a new dog park. Every kid in Dunwoody who plays a sport (thousands) has to travel outside Dunwoody to do it. Meanwhile, people from the metro area will continue to bring their dogs to Brook Run to ruin yet another section of the park. I sure hope you will work with the mayor and council and form some type of Parks and Rec committee so that we can work on some active recreation plans for Brook Run.

SDOC Publishing Internet Solutions said...

Question for ya....
Why was the roundabout put into the budget proposal in the first place when everyone from Council on down knew that the neighbors were opposed to it and proposed an alternate, less expensive idea during the public vetting phase?

I saw Michael Smith's proposal at DHA and it was very compelling. I even thought it could work and I'm the world's biggest skeptic of roundabout feasibility in our city. However, I'm not the one who would have to live with it, both during construction and after.

But the bottom line is, **the people who live the closest to it were the most strongly opposed.** That's what I like to call a "clue".

Here's a refresher from Bob F's blog: http://dunwoodyusa.blogspot.com/2012/09/vermackwomack-intersection-improvements.html

So why was the plan pushed forward even knowing that the homeowners immediately adjacent were going to fight it? Why were you on council put in the position of having to remove it?

Add this to the list of reasons why people don't like to speak up and voice their opinions. It's like they're not going to be taken seriously anyway unless they're willing to fight a war, so why bother?

Dunwoody Dad said...

John - as someone who lives near the Womack/Vermack intersection, I thank you for voting to remove this item from the budget. And DunwoodyTalk, you post is completely wrong.

I am not someone who says "no change" to anything, and I recognize that the intersection is miserable for about two hours each weekday during the school year (which calculates to 360 hours in a year, or about 4.1%). I am also not automatically opposed to a roundabout simply because it's a roundabout. For Terry Nall, I also recognize that we need to consider the needs of all of Dunwoody, not simply the few living nearby - I even include the large number of students attending Perimeter College who live elsewhere and use our streets to get to and from school.

But in this case, based on what I have learned, the vendor hired by the city to study the feasibility of a roundabout neglected to consider pedestrians in their study. And unfortunately, peak pedestrian time matches peak vehicle time; so if the plan is to improve an intersection that is miserable for cars at certain times of day, you have to take pedestrians into account because they also peak at those same times of day.

I personally would be in favor of a roundabout if the proposal included more safety for pedestrians - lighted crosswalks (blinking or not), for example. Or speed humps for traffic calming. A lower speed limit would be nice as well, but I'm not sure the city can do so without involving the county - maybe you can weigh in John?

So I am not saying "NO! NEVER!" but rather "show me you are considering all the changes - vehicles, walkers, bicyclers, and high school students who would be forced to use another entrance (and exit?) to the student parking lot." If the roundabout still makes sense, then so be it.

Steve Barton said...

Yo "Dunwoody Dad" what is completely wrong with the post about the dog park? And what SDOC PIS is really noticing is that talking to the city staff at community meetings does not change their plans. The council is still presented with unpopular plans and citizens have to voice opinions again. Glad that the council listens (even if not every citizen is pleased every time!), but maybe city staff could somehow improve their approach.

Dunwoody Dad said...

Um, I wasn't responding to the dog park comment; I actually agree with DunwoodyTalk and his dog park comments.

Robespierre said...

It is ridiculous to use all that taxpayers' money for a dog park. These dog owners don't even love their dogs as a dog park is the unhealthiest thing you can do for your dog. These people just want to sit around and socialize.

These people need to get some exercise and go walk their dogs on their neighborhood streets.

Glory_Jackson said...

My, my Mr Heneghan, are all your critics this lacking in the capability for coherent articulation? Or are they planning on running for office themselves, wishing to be the new beneficiary of your overly generous councilperson stipend, and are practicing their skills in political doublespeak?

Hire_A_Veteran said...

Read this in the printed version of the "Dunwoody Reporter" today -

"Long-awaited Chick-fil-A Coming to Dunwoody"

"Dunwoody Economic Development Director Michael Starling said the city has also gone out of its way to accommodate Chick-fil-A."

Hey Dunwoody, what about your gay/lesbian citizens/taxpayers? What about your gay/lesbian sons and daughters, respectively?

You can count me as one who will not only not patronize this establishment of enmity (which is easy as I've never been impressed with their chicken sandwich or the sanitation in the restaurants) with a corporate head that espouses unchristian-like vehement hatred towards fellow human beings, but will also boycott all the businesses in the Williamsburg strip mall when this comes to fruition.